I bet there's a few rather more deserving - and needful - crowdfunding campaigns that people could support.

as much as the symbolic support. The media is trying its best to demonize him, all the while ignoring the fact that insurance companies kill thousands each year by decision. So media and the insurance companies want to bury that story. But by sending his GFM even as little as $5, you will be showing your support for him.

The feds jumped in and laughingly charged him with terrorism. Did they charge Dyan Roof with terrorism? No. Did they charge Klye Rittenhouse with terrorism? No. Did they charge any of the other RW nuts that killed demonstrators? No. And none of the people who shot up schools were charged with terrorism. So why charge Mangione with terrorism? It's called pile on, and an attempt to make it more than what it is.

I forget her name, but a woman was recently jailed under flimsiest of reasons, for repeating the words he said. She made no threats, and directed them to no one, but the cops jumped on her with both feet, to make an example out of her, too. "They" do not want "us" to push back against their murderous coverage decisions. So the more we do to show support for him, the better.

But the push back of "He had a wife and kids!" is ironic. How many tyrants, mass murders, etc., had wife and kids, but got no sympathy? It's all about spin.

So go donate a few bucks, just to show your support. Get the number of donations above 100K and you can bet there will be some CEOS running scared. Time to call the insurance companies to account for the peopel they killed.

NO I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER.

That is not the way to do things.

If you were truly directing that suggestion to me - you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

You seem awfully cozy with the idea of vigilante justice as the way to solve problems.

...and not to help a lunatic murderer.

The brain rot of this country is obscene.

When you raise money for a man who shot another man in the back of the head in cold blood you are celebrating violence.

personnel/contractors, citizens in foreign countries accused of murders etc.? Because people in this country and around the world have raised money for not only the legal defense of people in those groups I mentioned but also raised money to support them knowing their purpose was to do the crimes.

Iran-Contra, Blackwater and others in Iraq, El Salvador death squads, Chilean death squads, funds raised to support the illegal squatters in the West Bank committing crimes, funds raised to defend and support people who torture others? Money raised to support wars and killings by Colonizers of indigenous people?

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion I am applying it. This country has celebrated violence against people for a very long time. We have a whole movie archive that is filled with "Westerns", that glorified and justified our slaughter of indigenous people, and "War Movies". But is it that the violence of Luigi wasn't "sanctioned" by the government and that administrative blessing is what makes it "OK"?

Or is it OK for some killing as long as we all "like" the reason? These are questions that society doesn't like to deal with. So we don't. The lack of doing so allows us to apply our condemnation as selectively as we choose. This is part of how we have been and still are.

I've always tried to answer the realities of human behavior, as in: People who purposely destroy our environment in order to become wealthy..
...or manufacture items that are profitable but harmful AND shorten the life of the population, fully knowing whats-going-down.
My question is: What's worse? a corporation shortens the life of 10,000 people versus one person who kills one person.
I understand it's a vacuous question but the answer for myself is: I'll be damned if I know. but..I do know that the former people of the corporation
never seem to answer for their crimes.

It has always been a reality that the judges and the politicians moralize the behavior of the average person while excusing away or diluting responsibility for that same behavior among the better off. I've come to believe, over the years, that they do so partly because of that "success and money" that they desire for themselves. They see in the corporate offender a part of themselves.

The word most common to all but a few of them when being described by people who know them is "ambitious". I have never known people so described to not be about power and money. Thought of another way would be to see that these people, as described, if given the choice of having a long career as a judge or politician and making every decision right and morally sound or of having great wealth for themselves they would overwhelmingly choose the latter.

No matter how heinous one may find these things to be,, Military and government actions are officially sanctioned incidents, That's just the reality of it. And Hollywood? This was a deliberate act of murder, Not some black ops mission nor a Hollywood production. No equivalence at all

which is about condoning violence and money provided to those who do and commit such acts. It is not about official approval because that is just a matter of application for which courts and politicians will weasel word when they feel the need. The examples I'm speaking of are things like people knew very well that when you set out "militia groups" aka "contractors" to take actions in an area of conflict that there are going to be people who go to excess. Any psychologist will tell you that is not an "if" it is a "when". But when it happens the people who funded it all claim "we had no idea and do not condone it" etc. But the facts are they know these things going in and it is only after being caught that they come out with the disingenuous rejection of the violence. But the idea of politicians and "leaders" being hypocritical and cowardly is nothing new which also goes to the point of long standing glorification and condoning of violence.

The slaughter of the indigenous people here in the US was also a deliberate act of murder. The reference to Hollywood is to show that not only did we do the act in reality but we romanticize it to this day and so the question of condoning is laid to rest with an undeniable verdict of guilty. Dead is still dead and there is no defense about condoning violence by saying "Oh it was authorized" or "Oh they went further than authorized". The powers that be love control of the people and projection of their power and ambitions through violence fully condoned.

So this man obviously went out of control and allegedly killed this CEO. As I posed originally the El Salvador Death Squads went out of control too. As well as the Contras. As well as the illegal squatters in the West Bank. As well as the people who raped and tortured prisoners in official prisons and black sites. But money raised for their defense and actions draws no widespread "outrage and claims of condoning violence" by government, media and the general population. Supposedly only for this individual is legal defense money inappropriate and supposedly "condoning" something.

I don't care whether you wear a hoodie and commit a violent act directly or whether you wear a suit and tie and pay others to do it for you under the guise of being "official". A stand on morals, which is what the question of condoning is about, doesn't change based on what you wear, your station in life or some "power and authority" claimed. Those who vacillate about that aren't about morals and in fact show themselves to be situational in applying some standard of conduct rather than upholding one.

100% spot on!

What is the moral equivalence? I just don't feel this argument has a leg to stand on, much less a crutch. I can't even begin to enumerate the murderous consequences of some of the sanctioned actions in foreign lands by our govt. It's sick and pathological.

People above the law as ruled by a CORRUPT SUPREME COURT MAJORITY.

And the media ignores it. Does the media report on how much Elon gave Trump's campaign? Did the media report that the millions Elon gave to Trump exceeded the maximum allowed by law? Did the media even report that Elon's money is a blatant move to buy favor? Of course not.

Shooting an unarmed person in the back of the head under any circumstances is wrong? If you don't agree then feel free to donate.

how you could miss what the movies reference was about but apparently you did.

if he's going to claim back pain caused him to shoot someone in the back when he wasn't insured by UHC, appeared to have recieved treatment, and his beef seems to be with doctors who couldn't reverse nerve pain from an injury.

Maybe he'll get some sympathy from jurors, but not as much if he had a personal story to tell of denial of treatment.

They waited in the cold for hours for the public seats. One called it a "grave injustice". Others gave him a "thumbs up" as he left. Most wore masks too
There are women professing their love for him all over social media
If e was fat & "ugly" a lot of his support wouldnt be there
What a ridiculous world

for 6 months makes me wonder if mental illness is involved. Ted Kaczynski had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, but refused to use the insanity plea, saying he had nothing wrong with him.

So the question is, does someone who is mentally ill KNOW they are mentally ill and accept it? My dad was bipolar and even after being picked up by the police and taken to a mental health facilities twice, refused to believe anything was wrong with him.

I wonder if Mangione is schizophrenic or has schizoaffective disorder. Stress can trigger mental illness in susceptible people and chronic pain is certainly a source of stress.

and I don't think he, personally, needs any help. Lots of other uninsured people do, though.

as someone who has chronic illness (rheumatoid arthritis), and ups & downs with UHC - the company in question. But I will not support someone financially who comes from a family of his wealth. His parents have plenty of money to help him with his legal and/or psych issues.

I did give to a go-fund-me this week, though. There is a guy back home, friend from high school, who has a kid with medical bills right now. It is a family crisis for them, and they don't have the funds for what they are dealing with out of the blue. I don't even know if they have health insurance, but I think they probably do from employment, because they were only asking for $2500. That is more likely time off work to deal with healing, co-pays, back & forth for doctor's visits, etc. I gave what I could afford because I know they are hurting.

... He just picked UHC as an opportunistic target.

There is quite a bit about his own health issues, and while he may not have specifically targeted an insurer he had a beef with, he clearly saw how the industry functions.

But all that aside, I do know that when I'm considering contributing to a go-fund-me, it is not going to be one posted by such a wealthy family. Or, rather, on behalf a wealthy family. Who knows who even posted it ...

Lorien Health Services. Plus two country clubs.

https://www.lorienhealth.com/

Don't they have the highest rate of deny and delay?

probably focused on recent years.

It may have small monthly payments on a sliding scale. That is from the Clinton Administration it is the only thing to come from His and Hillary's health insurance push in the 1990s.

I do know we are covering our daughter (graduated from college recently) under our family plan. Under current law - I believe this was the Obama administration - we can cover her until age 26. I'm sure the companies will lobby to get that cut back while Trump is president.

Don't need to worry about one aspect of anything with Trump and President Musk around. He wants to burn them all to the ground.

The up to 26 on your plan is from Obamacare. The child program is from the Clinton Administration and that is universal, have to apply and renew and pay a mild sliding scale per kid per month.

And the insurers like having a block of young mostly healthy individuals to write coverage for.

He had a good job. He already had a back problem already (Spondylolisthesis) then injured his back further in a surfing accident. He had spinal fusion surgery that involved multiple vertebrae. Apparently it didn't totally eliminate his pain. I don't know if he needed further surgery or therapy and was denied or was denied effective pain meds.

My brother has had 3 spinal fusions (1 neck and 2 lumbar) and needs more. His insurance has denied the type of surgery his doctor recommends. He's also gotten an electrical implant that is supposed to lessen the pain. He said it takes the edge off, but he's far from pain free. He takes care of himself, but he just inherited the bad discs from our mother.

to give a $1 donation, if that amount is possible, using a pre-paid gift card and do so under the name of a GQP member of Congress.

That another is killed believing their family can raise money. It's not logical but may happen.

Would not be at all surprised when there are others being inspired by him to do the same thing

I'm in no way celebrating what he did.

However, one common ground in the good ole USA, most people hate dealing with their insurance carrier.

It is the one service we pay for and have to fight to get.

Will a CEO's fear of getting shot in cold blood, change their greed driven business practices? Who knows.

just to jack profits by billions of $$$

UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2023 was $90.958B, a 14.24% increase from 2022.
UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2022 was $79.617B, a 14.31% increase from 2021.
UnitedHealth Group annual gross profit for 2021 was $69.652B, a 3.96% increase from 2020.

that it's wrong to stalk and shoot someone in the back is "making a hero out of him".

and the CEO who runs the company decides denying claims is more important than completing the needed medical procedures, in order for said CEO to get a bigger bonus? What do you call that?

fucking disgusting

in January 6 as far as I am concerned.

All his lawyers got funded by peons too.

The copycats will be rampant

The rest of us have seen his face in videos taken the day of the killing, found with the firearm, found with the manifesto Etc

online about the coat/backpack - perhaps not looking the same in all the photos. That will all come out in court though, and I'm sure the prosecution will weave together a tight story. When I look at it, the fingerprints on everything are pretty damning (and I'm sure ballistics with the gun will be additional helpful evidence for the prosecution). I do wonder whether he's mentally ill (common age for male onset schizophrenia). But, absolutely, innocent until proven guilty is the way it's supposed to be in this country.

I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia before but the VA diagnosed me with major depressive disorder with psychotic features (I also have PTSD) which I think is more accurate but in any case I developed it in my mid 20s he may be in his 30s but I don't care enough to keep up with this story but my point is I doubt it as mental illness usually doesn't cause someone to be violent in fact they are more likely to be victims of violence than the general population plus he created a ghost gun and traveled to NYC and away from there that is kind of hard to do when you're suffering with psychosis.

Don't worry I take a three month shot of risperidone and feel just fine.

interesting comments on the mental illness angle, thanks!

There are all kinds of conspiracy theories out there too, of course, because he didn't look that much like the photos. We'll have to see what comes out.

and was carrying a ghost gun and fake IDs tells me something is off. I agree that schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or some other psychosis is a possibility.

A penny per person in the country who's had an insurance claim denied for themselves or someone they care about.

Owns a golf course near Baltimore. People need to donate their money to people much more deserving

Turf Valley and Hayfields Country Clubs. Plus Lorien Health Services. https://www.lorienhealth.com/

Yes, he's innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn't mean we have to raise big money for his defense. He's not a Trump supporter, right? And this was such a heinous crime.

like the UHC CEO.

How come all I read is stories about the shooter on MSM and NEVER a real investigation into UHC practices?? I want to read BOTH.

"Death by spreadsheet" is just as heinous as shooting someone down in the street.

This is the exact type of rhetoric and support that happened when anti-abortion people would murder doctors.

Vigilanteeism is something that can be Weaponized against something you like very easily.

Assuming for a second that he is guilty
If you agree with what he did then you can send him money that he can use in prison to buy things.

And if you’re against the healthcare system, then only collective action can fix it. This country just elected an incredibly corrupt CEO as president for the second time, so things are gonna get a lot worse before they get better.

But targeting CEOs is only going to have them beef up Security, and gain sympathy, it’s not gonna change their underlying business at all